Obama to Haaretz: More pressure on Iran urgently needed

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a leading candidate for the Democratic Presidential ticket, has decided to take a more active role in the fight against the Iranian nuclear program.

"Iran continues to be a major threat," he told me Wednesday morning, "both the U.S. and to some of our allies." And he calls for an urgent enhancement of "the economic pressure." He calls for it, and he acts on it with the introduction of a new bill: the 'Iran Sanctions Enabling Act.'

He is still in favor of talking to the Iranians, no pre-conditions attached, but made some interesting statements clarifying his position in our conversation.

I asked whether the U.S. should talk with Tehran even as the centrifuges are still spinning and producing more enriched uranium. Obama's answer is both yes and no: "Its important to have low-level talks" with Iran even without them freezing the enrichment, he said.

However, high-level talks "will not be appropriate without some sense of progress" on the enrichment issue. Obama said that the talks with Iran initiated by the Bush administration over Iraq are a "step in the right direction." It will "establish a pattern of dialogue" with Iran, Obama hopes.

He kept criticizing the administration, however, for neglecting to negotiate for the last couple of years. "We need to check" if there are leaders in Iran with "a more sensible attitude" than the one expressed by the president. The U.S., Obama believes, should provide Iran with a "clear roadmap for improved relations" if it agrees to abandon its military nuclear program.

As expected, Obama is reluctant to discuss any measures other than diplomatic and economic pressure (he uses the no-options-taken-off-the-table formula, as usual). He won't take the gung-ho approach one could see in the Republican debate two weeks ago. Obama, mind you, is a Democrat. Is it absolutely crucial to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? "Yes." Using whatever measures that might be needed? "I will go back to what I said earlier" (the no-options-off-the-table reply).

He is, however, ready to let people see the distinction between his positions and those expressed by the far left of the Democratic Party. This was visible in the presidential debate a week ago. Dennis Kucinich attacked Obama for saying that "all options are on the table? Its important for people to reflect on the real meaning of that, that you're setting the stage for another war." And Obama attacked back: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran. But have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us that is a profound security threat for America and one that we have to take seriously."

Now, he is also becoming a leader in legislating against the regime in Tehran, making it clear that the challenge of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is part of his agenda - not merely a cause that he is paying a lip service to. "Clearly," he says, "Iran made progress in its enrichment program" and this only increases a "sense of urgency." Iran will not change its behavior without pressure, Obama says. "I'm not naive" enough to believe that they will, "or optimistic" that they will do anything without more measures taken. An Obama bill, accompanied by a similar bill in the House, sponsored by N.Y. Congressman Barney Frank (Frank and Rep. Tom Lantos had a press conference earlier Wednesday) is aimed at assisting the new trend of divestment from Iran's energy sector. Provide for one measure of pressure-building.

In Florida, a bill could require the state's $118 billion pension fund to sell off stocks in companies dealing with Iran and Sudan. "There is a flurry of activity is various American states and their local legislatures" toward the same end, I wrote two months ago. In some of these initiatives AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, is also playing a role.

The Obama bill will require the federal government to publish a list of companies that have an investment of more than $20 million in the Iranian energy sector, and will be updated every six months. This list will be the tool, providing investors with the knowledge they need as to divest from the right companies. It will also authorize local governments actually divest their pension funds, or any other funds, from companies on the list. Fund managers will be protected from lawsuits directed at them by investors who are unhappy with the decision to divest.

These measures were designed to meet possible challenges to decisions both by legislators and managers. A couple of years ago the Supreme Court struck a Massachusetts law penalizing companies doing business in Burma. "The president's maximum power to persuade rests on his capacity to bargain for the benefits of access to the entire national economy without exception for enclaves fenced off willy-nilly by inconsistent political tactics," wrote the judges. This is one outcome of the divestment movement that the Obama bill is set to prevent. "The states need clarity on this issue, and this bill will give them such clarity," he says.

Divestment from Iran, Obama believes, is an "appropriate strategy." His bill is almost identical to the House version, but has one small additional component: It can only sunset once the government of Iran has retracted the statements of the president of Iran calling for the destruction of Israel.